Professional Documents
Culture Documents
= (1)
In the above equation, A
o
is the initial amplitude and A
n
is the amplitude of
peak after n cycles of the accelerationtime response plot. Damping obtained
from the equation mentioned above was Log decrement damping. Murray [5]
stated that modal damping is one-half to two thirds of the value of the log
decrement damping. In this study, five initial successive peaks were used to
determine average damping coefficient of the test panel.
3.2. Theoretical determination of natural frequency
To assess the floor response to dynamic loads, an accurate calculation of the first
natural frequency is important to use in the design criteria against floor vibrations.
Research done by Wyatt [14], Williams et al. [15], Bachmann and Pretlove [16]
and, Brand and Murray [17] yielded various method to estimate natural
frequencies of floors. In this paper, fundamental natural frequency of the test floor
panel was obtained from the generally used analytical solution given in Design
Guide on Vibration of Floors [14]. This analytical solution for fundamental
natural frequency is given as:
2 / 1
4
|
\
|
=
mL
EI
C f
B Analytical
(2)
where m is the mass per unit length (unit in tons/m if EI is expressed in kNm
2
,
or kg/m if EI is expressed in Nm
2
), L is the span in meters, E is the modulus of
elasticity (kN/m
2
or N/m
2
), and I is the second moment of area (m
4
) of the
composite section. The values of C
B
for various end conditions are 1.57 for the
pinned supports (simply supported), 2.45 for fixed/pinned supports, 3.56 for fixed
both ends and 0.56 is for fixed/free (cantilever) ends.
To get the fundamental frequency from the equation mentioned above, it is
necessary to calculate the actual value of EI of the composite panel. In this paper,
the EI values of the test panels were determined from the full scale flexural
experimentations. Also, partial interaction analysis based on beam theory was
used in evaluating the EI value of the test panels.
3.2.1. Experimental determination of bending stiffness
To determine the experimental bending stiffness of the composite PSSDB panel
system, full-scale flexural tests were carried out in the laboratory. Figure 7 shows
the typical specimen and the instrumentation detail for the flexural test. The test
procedure followed was that of conventional bending test and it was similar to
that of DIN 18807 Part 2 [18].
The panels were tested over a simple span as mentioned in Table 1 and
instrumented for the measurement of quarter and mid-span deflections. Linear
displacement transducers were used to measure the deflection of the beam.
702 E. Ahmed and W.H. Wan Badaruzzaman
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2011, Vol. 6(6)
Portable electronic data logger was used to record the reading of deflections.
Loads were applied by hydraulic jack, which were attached to the pressure gauge
that facilitated in getting the load readings. After a regular increase of loading, the
loading values and the corresponding deflections were recorded. The load and the
corresponding deflections taken at mid-width and mid-span location were then
used to obtain the EI values of the composite panel. The quarter span transducers
were used mainly to check the symmetrical nature of the loaded panel.
Fig. 7. Test Arrangement and Instrumentation Detail.
Figures 8 and 9 show the load-deflection behavior of panel 2-4 and panel 4-6
respectively at mid-width, mid-span location. It is observed from the graphs that
the initial load-deflection response is linear and elastic and this elastic response
continue until just before failure. The final failure of the panels occurred when the
upper flanges of the steel sheeting buckled. The slope of the load deflection
graphs for the elastic portion was the input into the simple beam theory to obtain
the EI value of the composite panel.
Fig. 8. Load-deflection Behavior of Test Panel 2-4.
Evaluation of Natural Frequency and Damping of Profiled Steel Sheet 703
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2011, Vol. 6(6)
Fig. 9. Load-deflection Behavior of Test Panel 4-6.
3.2.2. Analytical determination of composite stiffness
To determine the theoretical composite stiffness of the PSSDB system, classical
partial interaction analysis was carried out on the composite panel system. One
repeating section of the composite panel was considered as a beam; the upper layer
was the dry board whereas the lower layer was corrugated steel sheet. In the
analysis, two elastic members (board and profiled steel sheet) were considered to be
connected by linearly elastic connection. The analysis included the flexibility of the
connection medium in predicting the stiffness of the panel. Figure 10 shows the
cross section and strain distribution for the repeating section of the panel.
(a) Cross-section (b) Internal Forces (c) Strain Distribution
Fig. 10. Composite Beam with Imperfect Interaction.
The governing differential equation for the composite beam section was
derived to get the general expression for deflections. Finally, method of elastic
equivalence was applied to get the final expressions for bending stiffness.
The final expression for the stiffness of a simply supported panel of this type
is given below:
( ) { }
(
(
(
(
(
\
|
|
|
\
|
+
|
|
\
|
+
|
|
\
|
=
1 2 / h sec
8 5
384
1
1 1
1
2
3
2
2
2
4
2
l c
s
k
EI
EI
EA
z
k
s l
EI
EA
z
l EI
EA
z
EI D
xc
(3)
704 E. Ahmed and W.H. Wan Badaruzzaman
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2011, Vol. 6(6)
where, l is the span of the beam, s is spacing of the connector, z is the distance
between centroids of two individual beam element, D
xc
is orthotropic flexural
rigidity of composite section, and k is the connector modulus from push out test.
s s b b
I E I E EI + =
,
2
z EA EI EA + =
,
b b s s
A E A E EA
1 1 1
+ =
,
=
EI EA
EI
s
k
c
1
where A
s
and A
b
are areas of the board and steel section respectively, E
b
and
E
s
are modulus of elasticities of board and steel sheet respectively, and I
b
and I
s
are the second moment of areas of board and steel section respectively.
The stiffness of composite panels where fully composite action takes place
between the board and steel sheet can be obtained from the simplification of
Eq. (3) and is as given below:
2
1 z
EI
EA
EI
D
xc
=
(4)
The derivations leading to these final expressions; Eqs. (3) and (4), are given
in detail in [2]. These equations were programmed in a computer to get the
theoretical bending stiffness of the composite panel.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Impact heel test result
Four sets of tests were conducted on test panel 1 in order to get an accurate
average natural frequency for the panel. The test results were analyzed and from
the Fourier amplitude spectrum analysis, the average natural frequency for the test
panel was determined. Table 5 shows the comparison of fundamental natural
frequency obtained from impact heel test and theoretical natural frequency from
Eq. (2) using experimental EI value. A very close agreement between these two
results indicates the validity of the expression in Eq. (2), in evaluating the natural
frequency of such composite panel.
Table 5. Comparison of First Natural Frequency for Test Panel 1.
Natural frequency, f
n
Hz
Experimental fundamental frequency
(obtained from Impact heel test)
Analytical
(using Eq. (2))
47.0 48.6
Beside the natural frequency, the heel impact test result was used to estimate
the damping coefficient of the test panel. Equation (1) was used to evaluate the
damping coefficient and it was on average 3% (log decrement damping) for the
test panel. Thus, the true damping of the panel was established as 1.5% for tested
PSSDB panel, considering the modal damping is 50% of the log decrement
damping. However, it should be noted that such flooring panel within the
structure will provide additional damping due to the presence of other objects,
furniture, and finishing.
Evaluation of Natural Frequency and Damping of Profiled Steel Sheet 705
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2011, Vol. 6(6)
After the validation of Eq. (2), the fundamental frequency of all other test
panels for a practical span length 2.2 m has been calculated. Column 5 of Table 6
shows the fundamental natural frequency of the test specimens based on
experimental EI values, which have the same length-width ratio but different
structural mode.
4.2. Effect of connectors spacing and board thickness on frequency
It is observed from Table 6 (refer to test 2 to 4) that closer connectors spacing
very clearly improve the stiffness of the composite panel. The closer the spacing,
the higher is the stiffness and hence, the higher is the fundamental frequency.
Fundamental frequency becomes smaller with the increase in spacing of
connectors. However, it is observed from Table 6 (test 2-4) that the change in
natural frequency is not that profound and hence, any spacing between
50-200 mm is considered practical for such flooring panel.
In all cases, it was noted that the test stiffness values (refer to col. 2 of Table
6) are much lesser than the fully composite stiffness values (Col. 4 of Table 6). In
fully composite analysis, it was assumed that there is no slip between board and
the profiled steel sheeting. However, due to the flexibility of the connectors,
partial interaction always takes place between the board and steel sheet in
practice. As a result, the actual stiffness of the panel will be different from that of
the calculated stiffness based on full interaction. The actual stiffness of the panels
depends mainly on the connector modulus and its spacing. If the slip between
board and steel sheet can be prevented using very closely spaced highly stiff
connectors, then the experimental stiffness value will be closer to that of the
calculated theoretical fully composite one.
Table 6. Comparison of Results for the Specimens.
Test
No.
Test
stiffness
(kNm
2
/m)
Theoretical
stiffness
(kNm
2
/m)
Fully
composite
stiffness
(kNm
2
/m)
Natural
frequency
(Hz)
Comment
(connector spacing
in mm)
2 215 148 288 26.2 16 mm board, screw
spacing 50,100 and
200 mm
3 166 142 288 22.9
4 142 139 288 21.3
5 157 144 385 19.6 24 mm board, screw
spacing 200 mm
6 138 138 245 22.7 12 mm board, screw
spacing 200 mm
The theoretical results obtained from partial interaction analysis (col. 3) show
close agreement and in general gives slightly conservative estimation of the
experimental results. Thus, the partial interaction approach can safely be used to
evaluate the bending stiffness of the composite panel.
It is observed from Table 6 (refer to test 4-6) that the increase of panel self-
weight using thicker board affects the fundamental frequency of the panel. It is
observed that with the increase of panel self weight, the fundamental frequency
slightly changes in the same constraint condition. However, higher stiffness to
mass ratio of the panel can increase the fundamental frequency and thus reduces
human induce vibration.
706 E. Ahmed and W.H. Wan Badaruzzaman
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2011, Vol. 6(6)
4.3. Effect of span length
In building industries, the span length of composite PSSDB panel will be between
2-3 m for normal office and residential houses. To investigate the effect of span
length of PSSDB panel, Eq. (2) can be used to predict the theoretical natural
frequency for different span length of the panel. Table 7 shows the natural
frequency for PSSDB panel system comprising of 1 mm thick Bondek II sheet
with 12 mm thick cement board for different span length. Connector spacing is
maintained 200 mm along the rib of the panel. The EI values used are based on
theoretical partial interaction analysis of panel.
Table 7. Natural Frequency of PSSDB Panel for Different Span Length.
Span length (m)
Theoretical EI values
(kN-m
2
/m)
Bondek II- 1 mm with 12 mm
cement board
Natural frequency (Hz)
1.5 135.9 48.6
2.2 137.6 22.7
2.5 138.5 17.6
3.0 140.1 12.3
3.5 142 9.1
4.0 144.1 7.0
Based on this result, it is observed that the change in span length results a
significant change in its natural frequency. Smaller span produces larger
frequency, while longer span produces smaller frequency. For panel with 2.2 m
span, it shows a natural frequency of 22.7 Hz which is well above the limiting
value and quite satisfactory for human comfort in terms of vibration. For span
length more than 3 m, the natural frequencies obtained are becoming smaller. For
3.5 m span, natural frequency obtained is 9.1 Hz which is closer to the limiting
value of 8 Hz [10].
Thus, from this study, it can be concluded that PSSDB panel comprising of 1
mm thick Bondek II with 12 mm thick cement board gives satisfactory
performance up to 3.5 m length of span and beyond this span length it causes
discomfort to the occupants of the building.
5. Conclusions
Both theoretical and experimental investigations have been carried out to evaluate
the vibration performance of PSSDB panels. Based on the study, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
A comparison between analytical and experimental study for the flexural
performance revealed that, the theoretical approach that is considering full
interaction between dry board and steel sheet overestimated the stiffness
value of the PSSDB panel. Thus, it is recommended to calculate the actual
stiffness of the panel either from experimentation or from partial interaction
analysis to evaluate the first natural frequency of the panel.
Evaluation of Natural Frequency and Damping of Profiled Steel Sheet 707
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2011, Vol. 6(6)
The analytical expression, Eq. (4), given in this paper can effectively evaluate
the fundamental frequency of PSSDB panel, provided the actual bending
stiffness of the panel is obtained.
The experimental inherent damping for the PSSDB floor panel is established
using the heel-impact test, which is 1.5% for the test panel.
Material properties such as dry board thicknesses, spacing and rigidity of
connectors contribute to the stiffness of the panel system, thus affecting the
fundamental frequency of the flooring system using such panel.
Span length of floor panel should take as a major consideration when
designing such floor system. A longer span generates more vibration due to
decrease in natural frequency. In this paper, it is shown that the effective and
practical span length for PSSDB panel is up to 3.5 m.
Acknowledgement
This research has been conducted in the Structural Engineering laboratory of
UKM and Heavy Structure and Mechanical Engineering laboratory of University
Malaysia Sarawak. The authors would like to thank the technicians of these
laboratories for their contribution in preparing and testing the specimens.
References
1. Wright, H.D.; and Evans, H.R.; Burt, C.A. (1989). Profiled steel sheet/dry
boarding composite floors. The Structural Engineer, 67(7), 114-129.
2. Ahmed, E. (1996). Behavior of profiled steel sheet dry board panel. Master of
Engineering Thesis. Faculty of Engineering, University Kebangsaan Malaysia.
3. Wan Badaruzzaman, W.H.; Zain, M.F.M.; Akhand, A.M.; and Ahmed, E.
(2003). Dry board as load bearing element in the profiled steel sheet dry
board floor panel system - Structural performance and applications. Journal
of Construction and Building Materials, 17(4), 289-297.
4. Ahmed, E.; and Wan Badaruzzaman, W.H. (2006). Bondek II/Cemboard
composite floor panel: Development, structural performances and
applications. Proceedings of the 10th East Asia-Pacific on Structural
Engineering and Construction (EASEC-10), Bangkok, Thailand, 591-596.
5. Murray, T.M. (2000). Floor vibrations: 10 Tips for designers of office
buildings. Structure/ fall 2000, 26-30.
6. Hamzah, S.H; and Wan Badaruzzaman, W.H. (2009). Structural evaluation
of PSSDB wall panel with square opening and varied screw spacing. Journal
of Engineering Science & Technology, (JESTEC), 4(1), 32-46.
7. Abdelghani, B.; and Wan Badaruzzaman, W.H. (2000). Limit state behavior
of profiled steel sheeting/dry board wall panel. Proceedings of the 4th Asia-
Pacific Structural Engineering & Construction Conference (APSEC 2000),
Malaysia, 39-46.
708 E. Ahmed and W.H. Wan Badaruzzaman
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2011, Vol. 6(6)
8. Ahmed, E.; Wan Badaruzzaman, W.H.; and Wright, H.D. (2000). Experi-
mental and finite element study of profiled steel sheet dry boards folded plate
structures. Thin-Walled Structures, 38(2), 125-143.
9. Wan Badaruzzaman, W.H. (1994). The behaviour of profiled sheet/dry board
system. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wales, UK.
10. AISC/CISC Steel design guide series No. 11 (1997). Floor vibrations due to
human activity. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Ill.
11. Sandun De Silva, S.; and Thambiratnam D.P. (2009). Dynamic characteristics
of steel-deck composite floors under human-induced loads. Computers and
Structures, 87(17-18), 1067-1076.
12. CSA (1989) Canadian Standard CAN3-S16.1-M89: Steel structures for
buildings-limit state design: Appendix G. Guide for floor vibration. Rexdale,
Ontario.
13. Ellis, B.R. (2001). Dynamic monitoring. Monitoring and assessment of
structures. G.S.T Armer. New York, Spon Press, 8-31.
14. Wyatt, T.A. (1989). Design guide on the vibration of floors. Steel
Construction Institute Publication 076. Construction Industry Research and
Information Association, London, UK.
15. Williams, M.S.; and Waldron, P. (1994). Evaluation of methods for
predicting occupants induced vibration in concrete floors. The Structural
Engineer, 72(20), 334-340.
16. Bachmann, H.; Pretlove, A.J.; and Rainer, J.H. (1995). Vibration problems
in structures. Practical guidelines, Vibration induced by people. B.H.
Berlin, Birkhauser.
17. Band, B.S.; and Murray, T.M. (1999). Floor vibrations: Ultra-long span joist
floors. Proceedings of the 1999 Structures Congress. American Society of
Civil Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana, 145-148.
18. DIN 18807 Part 2 (1987). Trapezoidal sheeting in building: Trapezoidal steel
sheeting: Determination of load bearing capacity by testing. Berlin: Beuth
Verlag GmbH.